Appeal 6001020

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a residential development (minimum 3, maximum 5 dwellings) at [name] to [address], Barripper, Camborne, Cornwall [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/03885.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent stage’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. It is only at the technical details consent stage where a planning permission can be granted. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

I have amended the description of development slightly to refer to the minimum and maximum number of dwellings.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be in an appropriate location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy and the effect on the character and appearance of the area. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

The appeal site, which forms part of an agricultural field, is bounded by existing development immediately to the north and west. To the south is an area being used as a sports pitch with fields beyond, while the site also adjoins fields to the east. The site is located within Cornwall Character Area 009 – Silverwell to Camborne. The description of the character notes that one of the forces for change has been development pressure on the edges of settlements, including small-scale schemes.

It has been put to me by the appellant that the proposal would conform with the Council’s spatial strategy on the basis that it would represent the rounding off of a settlement in accordance with Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (the LP). Paragraph 1.68 of the LP describes rounding off as development on land that is substantially enclosed but outside of the urban form of a settlement, with clear boundaries such as roads that act as a barrier to further growth. It also notes that such schemes should not extend building into the open countryside. The policy wording and supporting text is supplemented by guidance contained within the Chief Planning Officers Advice Note on Infill/[name] (CPOAN). This states that suitable sites are likely to be surrounded on at least two sides by existing development.

In this instance, the presence of existing homes to the north and west of the appeal site means that the proposal would conform with that particular aspect of the CPOAN. However, despite the presence of bunds and some vegetation on the edge of the site, it cannot be said that these features represent an obvious barrier that would prevent further development, particularly to the east. Moreover, it is clear when looking at aerial photography of the area, or when visiting the site in person, that it has an intimate relationship with the surrounding fields, and that the proposed development would have the effect of visually extending the built form of the settlement into the open countryside. On that basis, the proposal would not represent rounding off of a settlement. Given that it would also not accord with any other element of LP Policy 3, or indeed Policy 7 which pertains to development within the countryside, it is clear that the proposal would conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy.

Given that the proposal is for permission in principle, the detailed design of the scheme is currently unknown, including the precise number of dwellings. Nevertheless, the fact that the proposal would appear as a contrived incursion into surrounding countryside rather than a natural addition to the built form of the village would inevitably, by extension, result in harm to the rural character of the immediate surroundings. Furthermore, by developing an existing greenfield site, the verdancy of the area would be eroded to some degree. On that basis, my conclusions conform with those reached by an Inspector in a previous appeal decision for the same site2.

Therefore, for the reasons given, I find that the proposed development would not be in a suitable location as a result of the conflict with the spatial strategy for the area and the ensuing harm to character and appearance. It would therefore conflict with [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, 12 and 23 as well as Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023. Taken together, the relevant 2 Appeal reference: APP/D0840/W/21/3273109 aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development takes place in appropriate locations, and that it is well designed and preserves character and appearance.

I note the Council’s concerns regarding the efficient use of land. However, LP Policy 21 sets out that building densities should be increased where appropriate, taking account of local character. In this instance, I am satisfied that the proposal would be of a density which would be appropriate for the rural character of the surrounds, particularly given its proximity to open countryside. The proposal would therefore conform with this aspect of LP Policy 21.

It is not in dispute that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites for housing. Indeed, at just 3.9 years, the current shortfall is significant, and I have no evidence before me to suggest that this position is likely to improve in the short-term. In such circumstances, Paragraph 11d and footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) require that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of between three and five new homes that would assist in meeting need in the area. It would also provide economic benefits during the construction phase and provide support for local facilities once the dwellings are occupied. Despite the shortfall in housing land supply, I still only afford moderate weight to these benefits given that they are relatively modest in nature.

I have concluded that the proposal would conflict with development plan policies in relation to the suitability of the site’s location, including the conflict with the spatial strategy and the effect on the character and appearance of the area. The aforementioned policies are broadly consistent with the aims of the Framework, notably in respect of seeking to promote development in sustainable locations, while also requiring development to be well designed. Consequently, I have given considerable weight to the conflict with the development plan.

However, the conflict with the spatial strategy would result in little ‘on the ground harm’ given that the appeal site is located adjacent to the built form of Barripper and that numerous services and facilities nearby in Camborne can be sustainably accessed by bus. Indeed, even if one were to conclude that future occupiers would be largely reliant on private vehicles, the proximity of the site to Camborne, and the modest number of proposed dwellings, would mean that any related harm would be very limited. The identified harm to character and appearance would also be limited as a result of the small size of the site and the fact that it adjoins existing development on two sides.

As a result, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts, when considered in combination, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The development therefore represents sustainable development in accordance with the Framework.

Several third parties have objected to the proposed development. I have carefully considered all of the comments made. Many of the objections relate to detailed matters which go beyond the scope of the permission in principle stage. These include issues such as ecology, highway safety, parking, living conditions and infrastructure. The Council will of course need to consider these matters as part of any future technical details consent application. Third parties will have the opportunity to provide further comments at that stage.

The Council has confirmed that the area is not within the [name] designation and so there would be no harm in this regard. Some respondents have sought to argue that there is a lack of need for new homes, However, as I have already set out, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a sufficient supply of sites for future housing.

I note that a site notice may have been removed. However, the Council’s evidence suggests that the application was suitably publicised, and I therefore have no concerns in that regard. Any disruption during the construction phase could be adequately controlled by condition at the subsequent technical details consent stage. Some comments refer to the loss of playing space for children. However, it appears from the evidence before me that the appeal site is not a public open space or play area and so I cannot find harm in relation to this issue.

Finally, the loss of private views is not a planning matter and is therefore not a determinative feature of this appeal.

As set out within the PPG, it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole. However, there are material considerations, notably the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed.